Anf-02 vi.iii.i.vii Pg 17.1
Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 3
See Gen. xii.–xv. compared with xvii. and Rom. iv.
nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had “accepted”1163 1163
Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 5
There is, if the text be genuine, some confusion here. Melchizedek does not appear to have been, in any sense, “subsequent” to Abraham, for he probably was senior to him; and, moreover, Abraham does not appear to have been “already circumcised” carnally when Melchizedek met him. Comp. Gen. xiv. with Gen. xvii.
“But again,” (you say) “the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by an angel, if Zipporah,1165 1165
Npnf-201 iii.vii.xix Pg 17
περὶ τῶν μετονομαζομένων καὶ ὧν ἓνεκα μετονομ€ζονται, De Mutatione nominum. Upon Gen. xvii. 1–22. This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 578–619. See Schürer, p. 485.
in which he says that he had written also two books On Covenants.432 432 ἐν ᾧ φησι συντεταχέναι καὶ περι διαθηκῶν πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον. Nearly all the mss., followed by some of the editors, read πρώτης καὶ δευτέρας, instead of πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον, thus making Eusebius mention a work “On the first and second covenants,” instead of a first and second book “On the covenants.” It is plain from Philo’s own reference to the work (on p. 586 in Mangey’s ed.) that he wrote two books “On covenants,” and not a work “On the two covenants.” I have therefore felt warranted in reading with Heinichen and some other editors πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον, a reading which is more natural in view of the absence of an article with διαθηκῶν, and which is confirmed by Nicephorus Callistus. This reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that Eusebius misread Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote ὰ καὶ β', which the copyists wrongly referred to the “covenants” instead of to the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine instead of the neuter form.
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 44
VERSE (22) - Sir 44:22; Gen 17:19; ; Sir 26:3-Sir 26:5; ; Sir 27:28; ; Sir 28:14; .
